Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Michelle420]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.
Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

You brought up Civil action, so are you wanting people to talk about law or not?

I gave you several examples of "points of view" actions without law as well which explains why it does not violate those in business.

Please read the OP. The topic allows discussion of what the law SHOULD BE. It disallows discussion of what the law is as an argument for the topic.

Now will you answer the question put to you?

I did and answered you according to my interpretation plus you keep mentioning law so can you respond to my points.

This way I can understand what you are wanting out of this discussion better obviously something is getting lost in translation here in this communication.

You have not answered this question:
Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

Stating what the law is does not answer the question.

Why: because people have a right to express their ideas whether tolerant or intolerant and I gave examples.

 

[Foxfyre]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Nobody has said anybody should not be able to voice an opinion. I am talking about organizing an effort to destroy somebody's business/livelihood or otherwise materially and/or physically punish a person for no other reason than the person expressed an unpopular opinion.

Anybody who doesn't recognize the difference between those two things really should find another thread to play in because this one definitely isn't their cup of tea.

 

[Foxfyre]

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

You brought up Civil action, so are you wanting people to talk about law or not?

I gave you several examples of "points of view" actions without law as well which explains why it does not violate those in business.

Please read the OP. The topic allows discussion of what the law SHOULD BE. It disallows discussion of what the law is as an argument for the topic.

Now will you answer the question put to you?

I did and answered you according to my interpretation plus you keep mentioning law so can you respond to my points.

This way I can understand what you are wanting out of this discussion better obviously something is getting lost in translation here in this communication.

You have not answered this question:
Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

Stating what the law is does not answer the question.

Why: because people have a right to express their ideas whether tolerant or intolerant and I gave examples.

Thanks anyway. I see that you aren't addressing or answering the question asked and that is your right.

 

[Valerie]

As I have reserved the privilege of defining terms as they will be understood in this discussion, I like this one from Wise Geek re what tolerance is--I added the phrases in parentheses:

Tolerance means to tolerate or put up with differences. It means showing respect for the race, religion, age, gender, opinions, and ideologies of other people or groups. This concept means different things to different people, but it is when something is disagreeable that tolerance is expected, and in more politically correct cultures, (sometimes) demanded.

There are many different ways to show tolerance. A person might fully disagree with others on any issue from religion to same sex marriage, while at the same time respecting those with different opinions and treating them with dignity and respect. Disagreement alone does not equal intolerance.

One problem is the fact that this respect is sometimes one-sided. Those who disagree with a particular issue must respect the opinions of those who advocate it, but some advocates feel justified in labeling (or punishing) those who disagree with (certain concepts). People on both sides of an issue must be tolerant of each other (in order for tolerance to be in effect.)

When it comes to controversial issues, tolerance may also represent a “let’s agree to disagree” stance. It does not mean that a person has to accept or embrace words, actions, or ideas that are against his or her values or beliefs. It simply means that each person agrees to respect the other’s right to his or her feelings on the matter. When both parties have expressed their opinions, and it is obvious that neither is likely to change position, agreeing to disagree is often the most amicable outcome.

What is Tolerance with pictures ​

i love the way you act as if you are tolerant while being grossly intolerant in this thread...

your thread is in a debate forum but your OP is asking for subjective opinions, which is a convenient way for you to micromanage the discussion while reserving the right to be intolerant of those who see things differently... page after page you attempt to correct people to stay on topic... many of us are having a hard time tolerating your demands.


"This thread is about what we Americans consider to be freedom and

what we should and should not be willing to allow others who live among us

to be, to think, to believe, to say."



your OP is wide open and your posts are all over the road as you conveniently and repeatedly sneak in your personal bias and then admonish those who respond to stay on topic...


^ let's take that last paragraph about tolerance for example, which is nothing more than someone's interpretation of a meaning but the last part is important because this is an example of sneaking in a misconception/bias like you did in your convoluted OP:


"Tolerance means to tolerate or put up with differences. It means showing respect for the race, religion, age, gender, opinions, and ideologies of other people or groups. This concept means different things to different people, but it is when something is disagreeable that tolerance is expected, and in more politically correct cultures, (sometimes) demanded. "



your ilk would like to diminish anti-discrimination laws as "PC demanded" and some of us refuse to tolerate that facade.

 

[Michelle420]

You brought up Civil action, so are you wanting people to talk about law or not?

I gave you several examples of "points of view" actions without law as well which explains why it does not violate those in business.

Please read the OP. The topic allows discussion of what the law SHOULD BE. It disallows discussion of what the law is as an argument for the topic.

Now will you answer the question put to you?

I did and answered you according to my interpretation plus you keep mentioning law so can you respond to my points.

This way I can understand what you are wanting out of this discussion better obviously something is getting lost in translation here in this communication.

You have not answered this question:
Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

Stating what the law is does not answer the question.

Why: because people have a right to express their ideas whether tolerant or intolerant and I gave examples.

Thanks anyway. I see that you aren't addressing or answering the question asked and that is your right.

Organizing to destroy a business like a strip club or planned parenthood are examples I gave. You are choosing not to address my replies, under the guise I am not meeting your guidelines. Yet, I asked you to explain what you mean further and said Must not understand what you asking you shut down the conversation.

 

[Valerie]

"This thread is about what we Americans consider to be freedom and

what we should and should not be willing to allow others who live among us

to be, to think, to believe, to say."



our constitution protects your right to be, think, believe and say whatever you please as long as it doesn't harm others.

 

[Foxfyre]

Please read the OP. The topic allows discussion of what the law SHOULD BE. It disallows discussion of what the law is as an argument for the topic.

Now will you answer the question put to you?

I did and answered you according to my interpretation plus you keep mentioning law so can you respond to my points.

This way I can understand what you are wanting out of this discussion better obviously something is getting lost in translation here in this communication.

You have not answered this question:
Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

Stating what the law is does not answer the question.

Why: because people have a right to express their ideas whether tolerant or intolerant and I gave examples.

Thanks anyway. I see that you aren't addressing or answering the question asked and that is your right.

Organizing to destroy a business like a strip club or planned parenthood are examples I gave. You are choosing not to address my replies, under the guise I am not meeting your guidelines. Yet, I asked you to explain what you mean further and said Must not understand what you asking you shut down the conversation.

Is the strip club or Planned Parenthood being attacked for no other reason than they expressed an unpopular opinion?

 

[Foxfyre]

"This thread is about what we Americans consider to be freedom and

what we should and should not be willing to allow others who live among us

to be, to think, to believe, to say."



our constitution protects your right to be, think, believe and say whatever you please as long as it doesn't harm others.

I have no problem with the thread topic being phrased that way. And I appreciate it a LOT when people actually address the thread topic and don't try to make it into something else. However, what our constitution protects is not a valid argument for this thread. What the constitution SHOULD protect can be a valid argument for this thread.

 

[Valerie]

i believe the constitution already protects what it should... what do you think is missing?

 

[Coyote]

Guys - a reminder of the rules for this debate.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any USMB member or any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

2. For purposes of this discussion only, if there is any question or dispute re definitions used, the OP will define the word or term.

3. Links can be used to reinforce an argument but are not required and, if they are used, must be accompanied by a brief description of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

 

[dblack]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

 

[Coyote]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

That's the way I think the law should be.

On the specific topic: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform

Calling a "right" a "politically correct point of view" (in relation to same sex marriage) makes it hard not to see it as a minimizing slur - but I'll try to work around it.

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

That means people who's business involves serving diverse groups and viewpoints need to be able to be "professional enough" to serve them respectfully and equally. That means a caterer that typically does big events should be able to cater an NAACP conference and a Tea Party Rally with equal professionalism. They are not endorsing anything - they are venders. Tolerance also means that those looking for a vender, shop for the vender that most fits their needs - not seeking to find one that will repudiate them just so they can make a stink. None of that needs to be in the law - that's common curteousy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

That's the way I think the law should be.

On the specific topic: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform

Calling a "right" a "politically correct point of view" (in relation to same sex marriage) makes it hard not to see it as a minimizing slur - but I'll try to work around it.

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

That means people who's business involves serving diverse groups and viewpoints need to be able to be "professional enough" to serve them respectfully and equally. That means a caterer that typically does big events should be able to cater an NAACP conference and a Tea Party Rally with equal professionalism. They are not endorsing anything - they are venders. Tolerance also means that those looking for a vender, shop for the vender that most fits their needs - not seeking to find one that will repudiate them just so they can make a stink. None of that needs to be in the law - that's common curteousy.

I agree with all of the above but I see nothing new that needs to be legislated.

 

[Coyote]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

That's the way I think the law should be.

On the specific topic: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform

Calling a "right" a "politically correct point of view" (in relation to same sex marriage) makes it hard not to see it as a minimizing slur - but I'll try to work around it.

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

That means people who's business involves serving diverse groups and viewpoints need to be able to be "professional enough" to serve them respectfully and equally. That means a caterer that typically does big events should be able to cater an NAACP conference and a Tea Party Rally with equal professionalism. They are not endorsing anything - they are venders. Tolerance also means that those looking for a vender, shop for the vender that most fits their needs - not seeking to find one that will repudiate them just so they can make a stink. None of that needs to be in the law - that's common curteousy.

I agree with all of the above but I see nothing new that needs to be legislated.

I agree - libel and slander cover most of it. Much more could really infringe on free speech imo.

 

[Foxfyre]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

That's the way I think the law should be.

On the specific topic: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform

Calling a "right" a "politically correct point of view" (in relation to same sex marriage) makes it hard not to see it as a minimizing slur - but I'll try to work around it.

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

That means people who's business involves serving diverse groups and viewpoints need to be able to be "professional enough" to serve them respectfully and equally. That means a caterer that typically does big events should be able to cater an NAACP conference and a Tea Party Rally with equal professionalism. They are not endorsing anything - they are venders. Tolerance also means that those looking for a vender, shop for the vender that most fits their needs - not seeking to find one that will repudiate them just so they can make a stink. None of that needs to be in the law - that's common curteousy.

I agree with all of the above but I see nothing new that needs to be legislated.

I agree - libel and slander cover most of it. Much more could really infringe on free speech imo.

Yes, freedom comes at a price and if that price means that some have to hold their nose, or their tongue, in some professional capacity then sobeit. It is impossible to cater to every prejudice and it is just as impossible to legislate morality.

Everyone has the right to express their personal opinion outside of their professional life but equally so they have to tolerate what they personally find to be obnoxious because others have the right to be obnoxious.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically correct opinion violates that person's rights.

Except that it happens to both sides.

Duck dynasty is no different to Planned Parenthood in that both are facing the same degree of censure from people having the right to express themselves.

And yes, that right includes boycotts since those are peaceful ways of acting effectively as opposed to violence which is illegal.

There can be no "new law" that only protects one side and not the other.

And no "new law" should infringe on the right of everyone to express their opinion and to organize peaceful boycotts if they want.

Freedom of expression cannot be infringed for something as petty as demanding that there must be "tolerance" and banning all legitimate protests.

 

[Valerie]

foxfyre said:

"Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights."


...



who is doing that? and what do you propose to do about it?

 

[Foxfyre]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.
Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically correct opinion violates that person's rights.

Except that it happens to both sides.

Duck dynasty is no different to Planned Parenthood in that both are facing the same degree of censure from people having the right to express themselves.

And yes, that right includes boycotts since those are peaceful ways of acting effectively as opposed to violence which is illegal.

There can be no "new law" that only protects one side and not the other.

And no "new law" should infringe on the right of everyone to express their opinion and to organize peaceful boycotts if they want.

Freedom of expression cannot be infringed for something as petty as demanding that there must be "tolerance" and banning all legitimate protests.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was attacked for no reason other than he expressed an unpopular point of view.

Planned Parenthood is attacked not for opinions they express, but for what they DO.

Is it possible to acknowledge that those are two different things?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

who is doing that? and what do you propose to do about it?

It does not matter who is doing it--a principle or concept is being stated.
It does not matter what I propose to do about it. I am arguing a principle and concept.